The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1887-07-23


was nothing to do but read the proofs when
ne went away. The Indictment charged
that he published the article maliciously,
which could not be the case If he knew
nothing about it until afterwards. The
. other defense was that during the after
. noon certain papers were taken from the
Government Building in such a manner as
u excite suspicion and that there were
/ reasonable grounds, considering the cir
cumstances OF the day, tor believing the
( matter 10 be true; that the mistake was a
[ reasonable one; that it was within the line
! Of duty of a newspaper 70 call attention 10
( such a matter, because the public were in
+ terested in all public documents.
A. T. Atkinson, defendant. depoSed that
he was editor of the Gazette" He sug-
gested to Mr.. Whitney, by telephone, the
publication of the extra issue, after having
been at the political meeting on June Both.
. Mr.. Whitney cOncurring, witness went TO
work on it till midnight, and went to the
/ office at $50 a. m, remaining there till
/ 3 80 a. IN. He had finished the whole of
the work. PreSuming that nothing but
. what he had written would be published,
he went out and did not return to the Of
fee till about p. IN. Shortly before this
witness went into Major Hills store,
! where he had q conversation with the
/ Major and then with Judge Preston. 1t
was then that he first heard of the publiCa
/ ton of this article.
| In cross-examinatIon witness stated that
IN his absence Mr.. Whitney was supposed
| TO supervise the editorial, but he did
! specially request Mr.. Whitney TO do so on
| this occasion.
Mr. Neumann-D Do you know who wrote
the article?
Mr.. Dole objected. That had nothing to
do with the case.
His Honor ruled that it was optional
with the witness whether he should an
swer
Wimess--I do know.
Mr.. Neumann-W Who gave the mforma-
tom
Witness have no positive knowledge.
BY Mr. DOLE wrote the statement
submitted to Mr.. Whiting, but it was
deemed insufficient.
Mr. Dole desired to state on oath from
memory what the statement was.
Mr.. Neumann asked the Court whether
Il desire 10 MAKE goOu Ine INJURY III part
was defense.
His HonOr-It is not defense.
r. Grieve, supplying vacancy as re
porter on the Gazette, " stated that Mr..
Whitney's attention was drawn to the
item complained OF, and he had under
stood that the latter would see the owner
of the carriage about it.
j. II. Hare. the bookkeeper also stated
that Mr.. Whitney's attention was drawn
to it,
W. Whigham and J. d. Schmidt. MEM |
bers OF the Honolulu Rifles. who were oil
guard on the Queen street side OF the Gov |
eminent Building, gave evidence As to !
what they saw IN regard TO the removal of !
the documents III the hack. Their testi- !
mony was introduced by Mr.. Dole TO show |
that there was some reason for the publ
cation OF the article and that the informa-
ton, ii true, was such aS the pubic were
interested in.
His Honor ruled that this evidence was
inadmissibe for the purpose stated and
that it WAS not admissible for the purpose
ri proving hat the libel was true
A. T. Atkinson, recalled. stated tn at he
had no stock i'll the Gazette" Company;
his connection was that of editor He was
not an officer OF the corporation
This closed the evidence.
Mr.. Dole then addressed the Jury. con
tending that criminal responsibility i'll
vOlved malicious intent or negligence,
neither OF which existed H. the present
case. Mr.. Atkinson, though the editor.
was not the sole editor, as matters were
sometimes published Without his know-
edge. Why then should he be pitched
upon rather than the manager Mr.
Soper was no less guilty because he sold a
;opy of the paper. 1t was set
orth in the charter that there should
always be published in the paper the name
If some manager or officer of the corpora
ion who should be responsible for libelous
natter published. Mr. Atkinson was not !
IN officer OF the company. He was sim
'ly an emplOye as editor, That document
vas issued by law from the Government. /
t could not be said that Mr. Atkinson de-
erted his duties and went away. leaving |
persons to fill up the paper;
lie had written more than was published /
nd the responsible manager and publisher
vas in attendance. When he went away
e LETT nothing to be done except to print I
that he had written. He was therefore
esponsible only for the portion he had
repaired. He knew nothing about the ! 7
belOus article until its subject matter was :
IL over the town. He had tried to repair :
he injury by publishing an explanation, :;
nd he Mr.. DOle) thought the offer should
ave been accepted. He was not guilty of
eghgence or Carelessness; he had on the
ontrary done all that an honorable and [
igitut man could DO. The charge was {
hat he maliciOusly caused this libel to be '
As n matter of fact, he did not
he element of bad intention did not exist. \
t was simply an accident such as had u
eialien Mr.. Soper; for he was liable if he -
neW what was liz the papers that he sold =
his was the whole principle OF criminal
lalice, and it had been extended To all 3
nuntries where common Law exists G
onnsel admitted that this libel. il untrue. s.
a malicious, but the defendant ought not
} be punished for some one else's sins
miiariy. NAN might lie killed by ac-
dent, but It did net necessarily follow d
lat the person who killed tim vas guilty II
murder, As 10 the injury to BIZ. Pratt, d.
would no more injure man of his repu- u
ton than water would injure Il leaf q
Mr.. >euIaann addressed the jury in re- ~
y. He discla,mei any spirit OF vimdict- I,
enesS on the part OF the prosecuting wit
Il u